Quote: @AGRforever said:
I mean...barr didnt write it. Larry Allen did.
Larry Allen helluva HOF guard. piss-poor political commentator, imo.
![[Image: jess-haynie_-65-e1493047199769.jpg?w=1300&ssl=1]](https://i2.wp.com/insidethestar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/jess-haynie_-65-e1493047199769.jpg?w=1300&ssl=1)
Quote: @greediron said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ greediron said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Caactorvike said:
Bravo Barr. Post of the year!!!!
I mean...barr didnt write it. Larry Allen did. Not sure how a political post on a viking board could possibly be “the post of the year”. But to each their own.
I think youd find most “conservatives” dont deviate a ton from the list. I can say that by in large everything the government does costs more and produces less so at least when its coming out of my wallet I’ll prefer the most cost effective version.
Im not going to do some sort of response to each on mobile. Somebody on their PC can tackle that. Quite agree. I would say most want to help those in need, feed the hungry and care for the sick. Where most deviate is who is in charge of that, who pays for it and being forced into it. Most conservatives would say that having the bureaucrats in charge of welfare, education, healthcare etc is not the most efficient method. Most conservatives are not for huge corporations pillaging the land or having slave labor.
AND most conservatives don't like being called racist, hateful or whatever because they disagree with liberals on the best method for helping those in need.
So whats your solution, we all know what you don't want. My state has privatized medicaid and is converting to private prison system for the mentally ill. So you want for profit education, no standard, unregulated employer supplied health care and charity for the poor, all the while shifting the wealth to less of the population. Where you all heading with this, this country is not going in the right direction under conservative dominance.
Glad you know so much to know what I want. I would offer this is part of the problem, assuming the worst of others at best or projecting ones own faults to others.
That was my initial question, how is it gonna work in your ideal situation. You just say you don't want government involved, so who or what do you suggest will improve things. Sick people are very profitable, free market solutions, how do they work?
I think Penn Jillette sums up my beliefs on government pretty well about why I tend to lean libertarian.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ BigAl99 said:
@ greediron said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ Caactorvike said:
Bravo Barr. Post of the year!!!!
I mean...barr didnt write it. Larry Allen did. Not sure how a political post on a viking board could possibly be “the post of the year”. But to each their own.
I think youd find most “conservatives” dont deviate a ton from the list. I can say that by in large everything the government does costs more and produces less so at least when its coming out of my wallet I’ll prefer the most cost effective version.
Im not going to do some sort of response to each on mobile. Somebody on their PC can tackle that. Quite agree. I would say most want to help those in need, feed the hungry and care for the sick. Where most deviate is who is in charge of that, who pays for it and being forced into it. Most conservatives would say that having the bureaucrats in charge of welfare, education, healthcare etc is not the most efficient method. Most conservatives are not for huge corporations pillaging the land or having slave labor.
AND most conservatives don't like being called racist, hateful or whatever because they disagree with liberals on the best method for helping those in need.
So whats your solution, we all know what you don't want. My state has privatized medicaid and is converting to private prison system for the mentally ill. So you want for profit education, no standard, unregulated employer supplied health care and charity for the poor, all the while shifting the wealth to less of the population. Where you all heading with this, this country is not going in the right direction under conservative dominance.
If I might add just 2 things. First of all, I purposefully didn't try to make this a contentious thread- out of respect for Barr and Caactor. Although we may not agree on some things, I love them both as fellow Viking fans (especially Caactor, who I've gotten to know through a few PMs and have tremendous affection for).
But, secondly, (at the risk of undermining everything that I just said): the conservative "ideal" is for limited government. So it would be (in an ideal world) an oxymoron to refer to conservative leadership as "dominance". If anything, a "good" conservative is looking to give power back to the people, to decide their own lives with minimal gov't interference (i.e. "dominance"). I'm not saying that every conservative governs that way- but, if they are conservative, they should.
Great I get the compassionate conservative thing. What power are you proposing for sick people or the working poor or Single parents? Time travel to undo a bad break, decision or being born in a crap situation that you don't have the skills to get out of, is not an option.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Great I get the compassionate conservative thing. What power are you proposing for sick people or the working poor or Single parents? Time travel to undo a bad break, decision or being born in a crap situation that you don't have the skills to get out of, is not an option.
I agree with you that almost by definition that the
downtrodden have little “power” or “agency”, but I don’t think that it’s a
given that a federal level government is the correct answer for fixing the
problems that they have. The governments
we have now, by and large, aren’t acting in the interests of the citizenry. I think we can debate whose interests they
are serving, but I think it’s a given that they aren’t serving you, me, or
anybody else that could possibly be considered downtrodden or middle class. I think that the whole model we have for
governments is completely broken.
This is what politics looks like to me:
- Election
campaigns based on emotional, triggering topics that we won’t agree on,
with a very limited number of candidates who are less than inspiring.
- Someone
wins, half the people feel like the worst candidate got elected. The other half feels relieved that the
worst candidate didn’t get elected but isn’t excited about their
candidate.
- Politicians
spend a lot of time publicly arguing about emotional topics and pointing
fingers, but when it comes down to voting on things, they never make any
progress on the topics they talk about, but they have no problems passing giant bills under the cover of night.
I think if you want real change, you shouldn’t expect your
government to do it, because they don’t serve you. Giving them energy and money is just taking
away from people who could actually be fixing the problems. The biggest problem with our government is that
it is designed in an easily corruptible way.
The government siphons a tremendous amount of money out of the system,
yet isn’t really accountable to the people it’s supposed to serve. There’s no metrics to follow on whether any
law is actually working. Laws hardly
ever get repealed, so it’s a giant tangled mess that no one can really follow. There’s no transparency at all, every single
time you want to look at a potential corrupt politician, there’s so many
redactions that you can’t make any conclusions.
I think we have our models of self-organization upside
down. Instead of making bigger and
bigger governments/corporations to serve our needs that are all based half a
continent (or world) away from us, we need to focus on organizing at more local
levels in groups that we can effectively ensure are doing our bidding. I especially believe that “compassionate”
projects should be done at a local level.
If you are passionate about topic X, what’s more effective? Bitching about other people and trying to
force the government to tax them, so that a huge bureaucratic organization with
a poor track record of making progress on anything can try to solve your
problem using people that just want a paycheck and don’t actually care about
your issue? Or actually working with
people to make things better at some level with real people you can talk to and
real people that are getting helped?
I think people need to stop vilifying people that want to
cut government. We need to cut
government spending, because it isn’t cost effective at doing anything
worthwhile. We need a reasonable method
for building our own solutions, and then stopping the funding of government
programs that don’t do anything. We need
real metrics that track whether or not the government is actually doing good
work and where it isn’t.
Thats all great, but whats cheaper and who are the members of "our" in "our own"?
Quote: @Caactorvike said:
AND most conservatives don't like being called racist, hateful or whatever because they disagree with liberals on the best method for helping those in need.
I dont see what “method” conservatives are employing to help those in need. Certainly not in health care, tax cuts for the rich, protecting the environment, attacks on immigrants and minorities, or inciting trade wars. And if you are a Conservative who supports Donald Trump —the best that can be said of you is that you condone racism and hate speech, if not openly espousing it. Sitting on the sidlines and splitting hairs, nitpicking and citing false equivilences as so many Conservatives on this board do (im NOT including you in that, Greed) is simply a passive aggressive way to dismiss what seems to me to be the obvious truth of this administration.
In order...
I know that you weren't using the word "employing" to mean actual "labor", but under a "free" market, unemployment has gone down.
Health care: again, the free-market forces companies to compete with one another by producing cheaper products... or better products (or both). I mean, look how inexpensive cell phones and computers are! If Blue Cross had to compete with other companies, they would have to lower costs... or go out of business. As for "pre-existing" conditions, I believe that everyone should have the chance to have health care if they want it. When they go off of their parents' insurance, that is the time to purchase health care (with no penalty for pre-existing conditions). HOWEVER: if they do not get insurance at that time, then- when they get a "pre-existing" later on- they will have to suffer the consequences for their lack of fore-sight. They should still be able to get insurance, but companies would be able to charge them more due to their pre-existing conditions. I don't know how that could be considered "unfair".
Those "tax-cuts" for the rich have stimulated the economy (because "the rich" are also the main engines of the economy). There are alot of middle class people who have also seen the benefits of those "taxes for the rich". Meanwhile, lots of people aren't paying any (income?) taxes at all. There are plenty of stories who make more money staying unemployed than working- meanwhile they aren't paying any taxes; just collecting the benefits of others. I don't want those in need to suffer; but I also don't want those who could be working and supporting themselves to be taking advantage of the hard work of others. (I'm getting a bit off topic, but that social safety net is a huge tax-burden. If we could reduce those taking advantage of it, then the existing taxes already being collected could be put to better use.)
What about the environment isn't being protected?
Immigrants aren't being attacked; that is a semantical deception. It is ILLEGAL immigrants that are being targeted- as they should be (until the laws change). We have laws about how immigration should work. Why aren't liberals interested in following the law when it comes to immigration, yet they expect conservatives to follow other laws that they do like (like marrying gays, providing abortions, etc)? I hate abortion. I believe that it is a modern-day holocaust. But I still wouldn't go around blowing up abortion clinics to stop it. Maybe a case could be made that I should...? But I'm going to work to change the laws of the country - through the legislative branch, not the judicial (like liberals do) to change that. I'm not simply going to break the laws that I don't like. If Democrats really want to get more immigrants into our country, then work to change our immigration policies; don't just ignore the law (i.e. "sanctuary cities"). Can you imagine if there were cities that were "sanctuary cities" that refused to enforce environmental standards... or who refused to recognize gay marriages? You'd be livid (and rightly so). Yet when cities (states?) ignore federal immigration policies, they are trumpeted. Remember when the state of Arizona wanted to enforce their border- and Obama stopped them, because he said the borders were in the legal domain of the federal gov't? So Arizona was not allowed to enforce the actual federals laws... because they weren't the federal gov't. But now that the federal gov't actually is interested in enforcing their own laws, various municipalities are ignoring it... as though they don't have to follow federal laws. Again, it appears that liberals want the laws that they like enforced... but are quick to ignore the ones that they don't... and to get laws made they don't hesitate to skip the legislative branch and go right to the judicial. When everyone can agree that we are a nation of laws, we can begin working to change the laws we don't like. Anarchy isn't helping; it is exacerbating the problems.
What attacks on minorities? I've seen plenty of racist things being said by Democrats- but there is never an outrage over it. But if a conservative says anything that can be even remotely twisted into "racism", you can bet that various talking heads will do it. It is an accusation that has lost all meaning, because every conservative is accused of it; unless they already are a minority- in which case they are called traitors to their race/gender/etc. This is nothing more than political mud-slinging... except now it's being used by non-politicians against their neighbors. I've been called a racist. ME! I used to pastor an all-black congregation and I loved it (and they loved me). I was more than happy to get to know the neighborhood and offer my help for anything that they needed. But because a liberal didn't agree with me, they labeled me a racist (among other things). We (as "common" Americans) should be striving for better.
I don't condone Trump's words; and that's why I didn't vote for him. That being said, those who called him the lesser of 2 evils have proven to me that they were correct. The country is better off now than it would've been with Hillary. I'm not so naive to believe that every attack on him has substance. There are credible reasons to be critical of Trump; but on Saturday I was sitting in a restaurant and CNN was on in the background. And what were they covering? How terrible Trump's handshake was when he met Macron. THAT'S news? Oh, and the next story headline (preview) was, "Trumps shameful...." whatever followed didn't matter. That's opinion, not news. Only someone who blindly believes their "news" of choice would believe all the stuff said about Trump. If you REALLY believe that Trump was racist- WHY wasn't there any accusations before? It was only after Trump became a "conservative" (which I'd say he still isn't one) that he suddenly developed all this hate in his heart for minorities. Really? Do you know anyone that- after age 50- suddenly became a racist? Now, he's always treated women like cattle... so it's not too surprising that the Stormy Daniels stuff is still haunting him. Then again, Billy boy Clinton did, too... and people thought his ability to seduce women was "cool" (even after there were credible accusations of rape).
As for the false equivalencies (spelling?): If I've ever offered any comparisons (like the one above to Clinton) it's not to excuse bad behavior. It's to point out the hypocrisy of those making the accusation. If rape is wrong, it should be wrong no matter who does it. If name-calling is wrong... or corruption... or any other kind of vice: if they are wrong, they should ALWAYS be wrong. But when people from a particular "tribe" (which is what most politics is these days) do not call out their own- while constantly calling out the "sin" of others, it says that they do not care about the sin... they actually do hate the sinner. If liberals want to hold Trump accountable for his words- because they genuinely believe that civility matters- then they ought to hold "their own" accountable for that, too. But they don't. And alot of conservatives don't either (which is why I stopped visiting that "other" Viking website: because the "conservatives" there had absolutely no problem being uncivil towards others). Bottom line: if virtue matters, it should be practiced all the time- not only with those with whom we agree. And until liberals (in general- not calling out anyone in this thread) begin to do that, then their criticisms of others are going to ring hollow.
I WANT civility in our discourse. It's one of the good things that has come out of the Trump presidency: I don't want to be like him. I've tried hard not to be as snarky as I've been in the past, because I don't want to be a hypocrite... and because I hate the false divisions that have arisen in our country, fanned into flame by those who profit from it. You're not my enemy, Caactor; neither is Barr, Big All or anyone else. There is alot of good that Americans could do- if we stopped beginning each conversation about our differences by assuming evil on the part of the other.
(I had to put this in 2 posts... I guess I was too verbose for just one).
God bless!
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
Thats all great, but whats cheaper and who are the members of "our" in "our own"?
Elaborate on what your concerns are. I feel like you are asking me to make assumptions in what you think or even more generally, were you even replying to me in the first place or were you replying to someone else?
|
